Caragiulo: Move city election to November

By PAUL CARAGIULO, Guest Columnist

Published: Thursday, November 22, 2012 at 1:00 a.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.

On Tuesday, Nov. 6, something extraordinary occurred in the city of Sarasota. Amid the mix of partisan excitement, elation and, for some, disappointment, more city citizens cast votes on city issues than ever before.

In fact 57 percent of city voters worked right on through to the end of a four-page ballot to cast votes on potential revisions to our city charter. Their votes were more than three times the normal amount of votes cast in City Commission elections, which are held in March.

In 2010 I, along with 28 friends, appeared before the city's Charter Review Committee to speak in favor of moving our March elections to coincide with state and national elections. Our argument was simple: Moving the vote would save more than $100,000 in city costs per election and, more important, provide for much higher participation.

Our request to have a "move the vote" amendment placed before the voters alongside other eventual charter amendments on the November 2012 ballot was denied.

That denial was based on two salient points, both of which the Nov. 6 election numbers clearly dispel.

One was "ballot fall-off" -- the theory that city issues and candidates would "get lost" at the bottom of the ballot, resulting in no net increase over the normal 12 percent to 18 percent of city voters who turn out for off-cycle March elections.

To test that theory let's examine the Nov. 6 participation numbers on just one issue: the controversial amendment to split the city auditor/clerk position. With an overall 69 percent turnout of city voters, 57 percent (or 82 percent of the turnout) took the time to mark the oval on the very last issue on a record setting four-page ballot.

And it gets better.

We can use the same charter amendment to discuss and put to rest the other argument against moving the vote: the fear that special-interest money and influence affecting city issues might go unnoticed in the hubbub of the major "up-ballot" contests, possibly corrupting the down-ballot outcome. The auditor/clerk amendment was proposed and heavily funded by special interests, with one group spending upward of $23,000 on mailings and signs. The opposition spent zero. Yet the amendment lost in every precinct. And, for the record, all of the city amendments enjoyed a similarly high level of voter interest.

So what have we learned from this experience? For starters it appears that city voters who vote in November are just as interested in their government as those who vote in March, and that money doesn't buy their vote in November any more than it could in March.

So why do so few of these November voters turn out for our March elections? I can only speculate, but it seems pretty obvious to me. We are all raised voting in November. That's when we vote. It is, after all, federal law. Or could it be perhaps that by holding our city elections in March we send the unintended message that local government just isn't all that important?

Whatever the reason, in the end I don't believe the "why" of low voter turnout in March is the larger question. In a city of 53,000 residents with a budget of $177 million, if commissioners can be elected sometimes by a margin of less than 700 votes, the more serious issue is the legitimacy of the democratic process in Sarasota.

If we know citizens will vote in November, why would we not want them to? It's all in the numbers, and 57 percent voter participation is something we ought to be proud of, encourage and support.

<p>On Tuesday, Nov. 6, something extraordinary occurred in the city of Sarasota. Amid the mix of partisan excitement, elation and, for some, disappointment, more city citizens cast votes on city issues than ever before.</p><p>In fact 57 percent of city voters worked right on through to the end of a four-page ballot to cast votes on potential revisions to our city charter. Their votes were more than three times the normal amount of votes cast in City Commission elections, which are held in March.</p><p>In 2010 I, along with 28 friends, appeared before the city's Charter Review Committee to speak in favor of moving our March elections to coincide with state and national elections. Our argument was simple: Moving the vote would save more than $100,000 in city costs per election and, more important, provide for much higher participation.</p><p>Our request to have a "move the vote" amendment placed before the voters alongside other eventual charter amendments on the November 2012 ballot was denied.</p><p>That denial was based on two salient points, both of which the Nov. 6 election numbers clearly dispel.</p><p>One was "ballot fall-off" -- the theory that city issues and candidates would "get lost" at the bottom of the ballot, resulting in no net increase over the normal 12 percent to 18 percent of city voters who turn out for off-cycle March elections.</p><p>To test that theory let's examine the Nov. 6 participation numbers on just one issue: the controversial amendment to split the city auditor/clerk position. With an overall 69 percent turnout of city voters, 57 percent (or 82 percent of the turnout) took the time to mark the oval on the very last issue on a record setting four-page ballot.</p><p>And it gets better.</p><p>We can use the same charter amendment to discuss and put to rest the other argument against moving the vote: the fear that special-interest money and influence affecting city issues might go unnoticed in the hubbub of the major "up-ballot" contests, possibly corrupting the down-ballot outcome. The auditor/clerk amendment was proposed and heavily funded by special interests, with one group spending upward of $23,000 on mailings and signs. The opposition spent zero. Yet the amendment lost in every precinct. And, for the record, all of the city amendments enjoyed a similarly high level of voter interest.</p><p>So what have we learned from this experience? For starters it appears that city voters who vote in November are just as interested in their government as those who vote in March, and that money doesn't buy their vote in November any more than it could in March.</p><p>So why do so few of these November voters turn out for our March elections? I can only speculate, but it seems pretty obvious to me. We are all raised voting in November. That's when we vote. It is, after all, federal law. Or could it be perhaps that by holding our city elections in March we send the unintended message that local government just isn't all that important?</p><p>Whatever the reason, in the end I don't believe the "why" of low voter turnout in March is the larger question. In a city of 53,000 residents with a budget of $177 million, if commissioners can be elected sometimes by a margin of less than 700 votes, the more serious issue is the legitimacy of the democratic process in Sarasota.</p><p>If we know citizens will vote in November, why would we not want them to? It's all in the numbers, and 57 percent voter participation is something we ought to be proud of, encourage and support.</p><p>Paul Caragiulo represents District 2 on the Sarasota City Commission.</p>